Skip to main content

About your Search

20121121
20121129
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
, including peter king, i hope his wife understands commitments last a little longer than two years. >> i have to admit the 2r50u9, it turned me on. >> will you want to exact punishment on them in two years. >> you told them nothing, they got nothing. >> we can ask president bush how his second term went. >> thanksgiving is a preamble to the holiest day of the year. how much you're going to buy, what deal you're going to get. >> we have riots, fights. >> i guess it's better than the 50 million americans on foot stamps. the most dangerous place in the country was oat a victoria's secret. >> what happened to trampling people for the love of the game. >> they're miserable so they want you to be miserable. >> the very intelligent people who work at foss nex news. >> the worst is getting a rental car and having no idea what car is yours. >> that's a game changer. >> we're in a death spa with hispanic voters. >> the answer is self-deportation. people decide they can do better by going home. >> candidate romney, he dug the hole deeper. >> let's get to our panel now. ari melber is with me here in new
to see you, grover. thank you for joining us. you heard lindsey graham a moment ago. peter king talked about saxby chambliss as well. here's what he said. >> i agree entirely with saxby chambliss. a pledge you signed 20 years ago, 18 years ago, is for that congress. for instance, if i were in congress in 1941 i would have signed -- supported a declaration of war against japan. i'm not going to attack japan today. the world has changed. >> senator john mccain weighed in as well. here's what he said. i'm sorry. let me read to you what he said. fewer and fewer people are signing this, quote, pledge. do you worry that this pledge is losing its grip on lawmakers? >> look, soledad, as you know, the people making this case, the three -- the two senators and the congressman that were put forward, they all said that two years ago when we were arguing over the debt ceiling limit. so their position hasn't changed. and during the debt ceiling limit we cut spending, we didn't raise taxes. so other republicans did not listen to peter king or these others and say, oh, let's go raise taxes. they're sp
norquist's no tax pledge. one of the latest is republican representative peter king. >> i agree entirely with saxby chambliss. a pledge you signed 20 years ago, 18 years ago is for that congress. if i were in congress in 1941 i would have supported a declaration of war against japan. i'm not going to attack japan today. the world has changed and the economic situation is different. >> republican senator saxby chambliss said, quote, country is more important than pledges. sorry, americans for tax reform and grover norquist, i'm in and out. it all sounds promising. you know, when it comes to compromise. except senators like lindsey graham didn't exactly say he was now open to raising taxes on the wealthiest americans. he actually said he supports capping deductions and buying down debt. which is different. so the question this morning, how excited should we really be by all of this talk of throwing grover norquist under the bust? under the bus, rather, not the bus. cnn contributor will cain is here along with jason johnson, chief political correspondent and political science professor at h
, everybody, i'm martha maccallum. you've got this. congressman peter king and now senator bob corker say they will ignore the decades old pledge that was signed by 241 house members and senators. he says he believes it is a huge game-changer. >> when you're $16 trillion in debt the only pledge we should make to each other is to avoid becoming greece. republicans should put revenue on the table. we're this far in debt. we don't generate enough revenue. capping deductions will help generate revenue. raising tack rates will hurt job creation. bill: this is the heart of the matter. stuart varney, host of "varney & company". morning to you, sir? >> this is a real shift. one of the two sides had some movement in their position on the tax side of the debate. that side is the republican side. as you heard there from senator lindsey graham, other, and other republican, they are now prepared to accept getting more revenue from the rich. not higher tax rates on the rich but getting more revenue from them by capping deductions. there has been no movement on the other side of the aisle. democrats lik
peter king is live with us in about three minutes on that. martha: new demands as the fiscal cliff approaches about six weeks away now, what democrats are now asking for, democratic congressman bill pascrel is here next. bill: a chilly confrontation that left a couple praying for their lives. why a cellphone video made this guy pull out a gun. >> the vehicle that they were recording was wappin watching them and shortly after pulled alongside of them, pointed a firearm towards them and demanded the phone with the video. bill: a huge fire breaking out at a power plant outside wichita, kansas. a spokesman said it started about 2:00 in the morning inside a piece of high voltage equipment. firefighters say the flames spread to 15,000-gallons of mineral oil. the plant uses it for transformers. look at those flames. so far no reports of any injuries. that is wichita, kansas. martha: u.s. ambassador to the u.n. susan rice going back to capitol hill this morning for more meetings with republican leaders. they are going to talk about her controversial benghazi comments that got so much atten
had on this issue. "the new york times" reported on more defections from the anti-tax pledge. peter king of new york is the latest who marginalized the number one conservative lobbyist in washington. king said "a pledge is good at the time you sign it. in 1941 i would have voted to declare war on japan. i don't think you can have a rule you're never going to raise taxes. or that you're never going to lower taxes. i don't want to rule anything out." you mean there's actually a level-headed republican in the house that wants to talk about this? republicans shouldn't rule anything out because the democrats are giving them one hell of a deal to go home with. the president has on the table right now, let's keep the taxes where they are for 98% of americans. how can republicans not campaign on that? they are going to be able to go home and say, hey, i didn't raise your taxes. not if you're the 98% of americans. it's the top 2% that have to pay more. they won't even buy into that if you listen to rand paul. the the democrats want to reinstate the clinton era tax rates. this would bring in
have been cracking this door a little bit. peter king said over the weekend for instance if i was in congress in 1941 with refrpbl reference to the pledge you made i would have signed a war against japan. i'm not going to attack japan today. the world has changed and the economic situation is different. that from peter kin. about is make it clear, what raising revenues and not tax rates. just on the surface, why do you believe that the door is starting to crack a little bit? why are republicans talking this way? >> two things, the people who are saying that they might vote for a tax increase that bush got talked into in 1990 for return for make believe spending cuts are the same people who said this two years ago, this is a complete media-created frenzy. peter king said this two years ago, lindsey graham said this two years ago. chamblis of georgia said this two years ago. they said all these things all during the negotiations where they tried to undermine where john boehner and mitch mcconnell got 2.5 trillion in spending cuts without a dollar than tax increase and those peop
and said i don't know who changed the talking points to take out al-qaeda. that's what peter king told us when he came on our show among other, and mike rogers attested to that. and then a couple days later his office came out and said, it was us. we were the ones who changed the talking points to take out al-qaeda. and then mike romers said -- mike rogers, mr. clapper, can you explain why you just told us it wasn't you and you had no idea who did it? so that's why i asked if she gave you a name of who briefed her. >> no. we have not been getting a name, but i would say, megyn, that i still think that there needs to be more sufficient answers as to what agency changed the talking points and who did that, and those are some of the questions we have answers -- we expect answers to. and also why they did that. it's absurd to me to think that you would omit the reference of al-qaeda. so we didn't want to tip al-qaeda off? and particularly since it's very important that the american people not be left a misleading impression which is what happened here. and not only did it happen, if the intel
the other saxby chambliss, lindsey graham, bob corker, peter king, they're willing to break the grover norquist pledge and consider new revenue. is this really anything new? >> no. all right. next question? first of all they're not saying anything new first of all. they're not saying we're willing to talk about rates -- >> bill: in fact they're saying they'll vote against rates -- getting rid of the bush tax cuts. >> this is not a change in policy at all. that's number one. number two these are -- senate republicans who don't have a lot of influence in this particular subject area. they're not the most -- they're not the biggest players. third, they're senate republicans. we need house republicans to change their minds. so i said this in my blog yesterday, this is not as significant as it seems and all of those who made such a big deal about it over the weekend are missing the key point. it is not a change in policy and two, look who it is. it is not that important. when i see some tea party switching and eric canto
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)